Author What To Look For If Romney Were To Win  (Read 8486 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« on: October 14, 2012, 01:44:12 AM »
After the riots finally end in the less civilized portions of some of our cities (the inner city), and the thuggy pressure groups like Occupy have their fill of burning, looting, and issuing threats, the Phoney Media will suddenly:
 
 - begin noticing the homeless again
 
 - be pointing out why the debt and deficit are bad things again
 
 - make unemployment seem worse than it is instead of beter than it is
 
 - report that the housing sector is doing worse than it is instead of better than it is
 
 - start reporting the setbacks and lost ground we are encountering in Iraq and Afganistan
 
 - be fear-mongering about terrorism again
 
 - be holding the President accountable for poor policy again (same with the Congress if the R's end up with both Houses)
 
 - sound concerned about small businesses again
 
 - find and report sob stories about folks that are falling through the health care cracks again
 
 - rediscover foreign policy issues that need to be addressed
 
 
Heck, enough Leftists and Democrats in general will be mad at Obama for losing that we may even find out more about his background, cronies, and even who he really is.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2012, 02:24:09 AM »
here's my ignorant assumptions.

Tax cuts
Deregulation
More aggressive posturing in foreign relations.

Proposals to reform or abolish

Social Security
Obamacare
Medicade Medicare

Revised withdrawal dates for Afghanistan.

Continuation of the drone war

No difference for abortion , gay marriage, Immigration.

That's it off the top of my head.

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2012, 06:34:37 AM »
It's very interesting to me that the politicians of both parties have been able to twist the words "tax cuts" and "cost" to make it seem that letting people keep the money they've earned is an expense to government.  I remember Bill Clinton saying that "we" - the government - send it (money) out, it's only fair that we get some of it back.

And at the same time, shelling out millions of dollars to corporations that go bankrupt within a couple of years is called an investment.  Of course, said corporations are run by people who bundle large campaign contributions.

These clowns are the worst of criminals.


Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2012, 07:43:23 AM »
These clowns are the worst of criminals.

And maybe more to the point, they're the worst of us. How did we get to the point where we allow people we wouldn't have in our homes to spend our money and set our rules ?

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2012, 11:15:39 AM »
Your country can't sustain another term of Obama.......
Huge national debt......
Unlimited printing of money, and the devaluation of every American citizens assets......


A country should be run like the business that it is........has Obama done that?


Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2012, 05:47:17 PM »
Your country can't sustain another term of Obama.......
Huge national debt......
Unlimited printing of money, and the devaluation of every American citizens assets......


A country should be run like the business that it is........has Obama done that?

What devaluation are you referring to?

- The single biggest investment Americans make is their home. US real estate market crashed in late '06/early '07 or about 2 years before Obama took office.
- The S&P 500 was in the 900 range when Obama took office, and recently closed at 1428.
- The US $ versus Euro is about where it was in early 2009; it's down roughly 7% vs. Yuan.
- US inflation rate was negative in 2009, about 1.6% in 2010, 3.2 in 2011, and running under 3% in 2012.

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2012, 08:40:12 PM »
What devaluation are you referring to?

- The single biggest investment Americans make is their home. US real estate market crashed in late '06/early '07 or about 2 years before Obama took office.
- The S&P 500 was in the 900 range when Obama took office, and recently closed at 1428.
- The US $ versus Euro is about where it was in early 2009; it's down roughly 7% vs. Yuan.
- US inflation rate was negative in 2009, about 1.6% in 2010, 3.2 in 2011, and running under 3% in 2012.

Nice campaign ad, but it doesn't comport with reality. You obviously don't grocery shop. I do. I've bought all my family's groceries for 6-8 years. The functional inflation rate, that is, the amount I'm paying now for the same groceries I bought 4 years ago, is easily above 25%. For some things, like meat, it's even more, and beef in particular has increased in price 40%. I haven't bought even hamburger in at least 6 months, since it offends me to pay $5 for ground beef. Steak? That's a laugh - it's in double-digits pricing now. Even chicken - plain, basic, whole chicken for God's sake! - is almost $4 a pound!

And the jobs situation is a disaster. Virtually every family I know - and these are professionals by and large - have had some kind of jobs disaster, whether it's losing a job and remaining unemployed or underemployed, being downgraded, cut back or with a grown college-educated child unemployed and living at home or working some service-sector hourly job. Obama has destroyed the once almost sacrosanct idea that employees got health insurance. No more. He's destroyed it and in its place the American workforce is going to get Medicare for all ages - except not as well-funded, efficient, user-friendly or with as good medical treatment. Just chew on that one.

The business owners across the board have had to cut back a great deal, almost all by letting people go. There are two things which I hear from business owners: the main thing is that Obama is the worst economic disaster of their business lives. The second is that because of Obama's anti-business* policies, that they must remain in "business hibernation". That means they've cut back and are just barely staying in business, because they can't trust Obama not to do something crazy. There's a basic business law which we've seen played out in 100% widescreen hi-def glory. It is "business hates uncertainty." For business owners to feel comfortable enough to risk putting money into their businesses, such as updating their physical plant, hiring more people or buying new equipment - things which boost the economy -  they must feel fairly sure they can predict what the near future will bring. With Obama they have no fucking idea what he'll do, what draconian banana-republic style monetary policy move he'll make next, what regulation he'll jam down their throats. If they can't trust the future, they shut down. You'll see this literally happen if Obama does pull out a victory, because businessmen left and right will simply give up. That's when we'll move into a true depression.

We're on the brink of that depression now. We're in the worst economic times I've ever seen in my lifetime: the gas shortages and rationing of the mid-70's, the runaway inflation of the late 70's, even the stock market crunches of the late 80's were nothing compared to this. It's as bad as anything since the Depression. And it's been brought on by the destructive, redistributive and insane monetary and regulatory practices of this vain, shallow, arrogant man.

A Romney win won't be peaches and cream by any means. But it least it gives us a chance to begin correcting the ruinous damage Obama has done. It will take more than a decade to fix...if things go well. Meanwhile, our children simply won't have the lives we've had to this point. What a disgrace.




* I should say anti-small business, because Obama's been quite generous indeed to those massive corporate entities which shill for him. His kickbacks to corporate cronies amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars, and is a national disgrace. But since the traditional media is nothing but his Ministry of Propaganda, we hear nothing about this practice from the very same news resources which would be screeching the news from the rooftops if a Republican had ever in history dared to do what Obama has brazenly done. Americans see and resent like hell this double standard.

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2012, 09:18:54 PM »
What devaluation are you referring to?
 
------


- US inflation rate was negative in 2009, about 1.6% in 2010, 3.2 in 2011, and running under 3% in 2012.

The Consumer Price Index and all the government measures of inflation are manipulated numbers, just like the unemployment figures.
 
The ratings on US Federal Government debt has been downgraded - twice - in the Obama years.  It's never happened before.
 
The Quantative Easing (QE's I, II, and III) is a fancy name for the Fed to print money to buy back our debt - that may not show up as inflation now, but it will once the economy starts going in the right direction and those dollars come out of the banks and into the economy.   In the mean time, we are getting another $1.5 Trillion in debt every year.
 
I think all that qualifies as devaluing our currency, even if we aren't pushing wheelbarrows of dollars to the store to buy loaves of bread just yet.

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2012, 08:15:05 AM »
Nice campaign ad, but it doesn't comport with reality. You obviously don't grocery shop. I do. I've bought all my family's groceries for 6-8 years. The functional inflation rate, that is, the amount I'm paying now for the same groceries I bought 4 years ago, is easily above 25%. For some things, like meat, it's even more, and beef in particular has increased in price 40%.

I do grocery shop, food inflation does not equal currency devaluation, and the president has limited control of forces (market and natural) that influence food prices.

I don't disagree with much of your post, but fail to see how it contradicts my specific comments on currency devaluation. Tomorrow may be another matter, but it's not a given this has happened yet.


Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2012, 09:15:44 AM »
Seems to me that there's formal currency devaluation and the practical devaluation that we see at the grocery store.

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2012, 10:05:09 AM »
a repeat of what happened under bush

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2012, 10:16:52 AM »
I do grocery shop, food inflation does not equal currency devaluation...

But devaluation (in its common everyday meaning) is the precise effect of inflation: it takes more currency to purchase the same items purchased in the past. And because I have a finite amount of money, I cannot make the same number/quality of purchases which I have been. Thus my money is worth less than it was; or, "devalued".

...and the president has limited control of forces (market and natural) that influence food prices....

I didn't hear Obama, or any Democrat, make those distinctions 2007-8.

I don't disagree with much of your post, but fail to see how it contradicts my specific comments on currency devaluation. Tomorrow may be another matter, but it's not a given this has happened yet.

I see the point you're making and, yes, I can see enough daylight to call it a technical distinction. But I think without a real difference. My point is that overall we have an economy in the tank. The bottom line is that this President, if for no other reason than  what we might call the "Big Jake Theory of Causation" ("your fault, my fault, nobody's fault, it don't matter") owns the worst economy in 70 years.



Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2012, 10:23:49 AM »
Fair enough  :)

I meant the term in a stricter definition encompassing broad devaluation versus goods and foreign currency, typically resulting from a central bank direct action.


Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2012, 09:17:30 AM »
Forbes: If Romney Cuts Taxes For The Rich By 20%, He Will Have To Raise Taxes For The Middle Class By $1 Trillion

The amount of income taxes received by the Federal government doubled over the 8 Reagan years despite several rounds of good sized tax cuts.  We came out of the oil-crisis and Carter era stag-flation by eliminating 'Wind Fall' oil taxes on energy producers, while Fed Chairman Paul Volcker (ironically appointed by Jimmy Carter) ended inflation with sound monetary policy.  Due to the rounds of tax cuts, money was invested from abroad at the new lower rates, money came out of tax shelters and into more productive - yet taxable - investments, small businesses and people that wanted to start businesses were encouraged by the cuts in taxes and eliminating some of the more egregious regulations.  Everyone did better - the economy grew substantially creating more taxable income, and creating so many new jobs with corresponding additional income taxes.  Incentives to save and invest rather than consume created growth.  The Kennedy tax cuts in the early 60s produced similar but more modest results.
 
Of course the Ds and their failed policies during the Carter years denied all that while it was happening and still to this day.  Even now Barrack Obama is going around telling small businesses 'you didn't build that'.  In another unguarded moment he'd probably say the same to people that built carreers instead of businesses.  Such denial.  Such poor policy.  Clinging to failed ideology - they don't care about and aren't interested in reality, in what works, they just want their policies in place at whatever cost.
 
This article was short on specifics but these are almost always static rather than dynamic - additional tax revenue due to similar changes in economic behavior mentioned above are not taken into account, just an assumption that everything would stay exactly the same except for the different tax rates applied to taxable income at current levels and how that would help or harm this or that group.

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #15 on: October 20, 2012, 10:08:39 AM »
The tax code is such a maze I cannot pretend to know all or even some of it's intricacies. Isolating policy causation from correlation is far from perfect. I do believe there's a floor and ceiling within which somewhere lies an optimal tax rate, and that rate moves depending on economic circumstances. What I find dubious is the claim that a tax cut will always benefit the economy, no matter what the ailment.

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2012, 11:05:45 AM »

The amount of income taxes received by the Federal government doubled over the 8 Reagan years despite several rounds of good sized tax cuts.  We came out of the oil-crisis and Carter era stag-flation by eliminating 'Wind Fall' oil taxes on energy producers, while Fed Chairman Paul Volcker (ironically appointed by Jimmy Carter) ended inflation with sound monetary policy.  Due to the rounds of tax cuts, money was invested from abroad at the new lower rates, money came out of tax shelters and into more productive - yet taxable - investments, small businesses and people that wanted to start businesses were encouraged by the cuts in taxes and eliminating some of the more egregious regulations.  Everyone did better - the economy grew substantially creating more taxable income, and creating so many new jobs with corresponding additional income taxes.  Incentives to save and invest rather than consume created growth.  The Kennedy tax cuts in the early 60s produced similar but more modest results.
 
Of course the Ds and their failed policies during the Carter years denied all that while it was happening and still to this day.  Even now Barrack Obama is going around telling small businesses 'you didn't build that'.  In another unguarded moment he'd probably say the same to people that built carreers instead of businesses.  Such denial.  Such poor policy.  Clinging to failed ideology - they don't care about and aren't interested in reality, in what works, they just want their policies in place at whatever cost.
 
This article was short on specifics but these are almost always static rather than dynamic - additional tax revenue due to similar changes in economic behavior mentioned above are not taken into account, just an assumption that everything would stay exactly the same except for the different tax rates applied to taxable income at current levels and how that would help or harm this or that group.
That's all well and good, but it is also irrelevant.  Comparing the economy of the 80's with the smoking crater left by Bush (what party was he in again? Strange you don't see him doing any endorsements for Romney, isn't it?) is pointless.


More important is that, while much of what you say about Reaganomics has some factual basis, Romney isn't saying he while make up the gap by expanding the tax base.  He is saying he will do it by eliminating loopholes and deductions, while still delivering breaks to the middle class.  This has proven to be mathematically impossible - there are not enough loopholes to close and deductions to eliminate while still delivering on his word, without raising the deficit.  You can point to what long dead president's did before half the electorate where even born all you want, but Romney's unwillingness to give any details on his so called plan comes down to one thing - he doesn't have a plan, and is making this shit up.  Ryan's "don't have enough time to explain it" bullshit is even worse.  These guys are running for the highest offices in the land, and they can't find the time to release a policy statement?  A fucking white paper on a website perhaps?  A few measly details scrawled  on poster board in crayon? These two guys spend more time trying to figure out new and interesting ways to mention "God" on camera than they have on any substantive policy statements.  They are couple of empty suits, grinning gasbags who have yet to articulate any concrete plans to move the country forward in any substantive way.  Simply running on being "not Obama" may be enough detail for the usual, run of the mill middle aged white guy who is going to vote a Republican straight ticket even if it includes David Duke, Akin, or some other minority hating 80 year old baptist fuck from Alabama, but it won't win the election.  At least Obama has a record to run on. Romney/Ryan has been the least inspired, most insipid campaign in living memory.  They make Mondale look like a policy genius.


I hope they lose spectacularly.  The Republican Party needs an ass kicking at the polls, so that it can purge the party of nimrods like these two, along with all the evangelicals, and get back to being the party of the Right.


A new Reagan sounds good.

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #17 on: October 20, 2012, 11:27:03 AM »
...  I do believe there's a floor and ceiling within which somewhere lies an optimal tax rate...

That's what the Laffer Curve would suggest

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #18 on: October 20, 2012, 12:09:18 PM »
....  You can point to what long dead president's did before half the electorate where even born all you want, but Romney's unwillingness to give any details on his so called plan comes down to one thing - he doesn't have a plan, and is making this shit up.  Ryan's "don't have enough time to explain it" bullshit is even worse.  These guys are running for the highest offices in the land, and they can't find the time to release a policy statement?  A fucking white paper on a website perhaps?  A few measly details scrawled  on poster board in crayon? These two guys spend more time trying to figure out new and interesting ways to mention "God" on camera than they have on any substantive policy statements.  They are couple of empty suits, grinning gasbags who have yet to articulate any concrete plans to move the country forward in any substantive way.  Simply running on being "not Obama" may be enough detail for the usual, run of the mill middle aged white guy who is going to vote a Republican straight ticket even if it includes David Duke, Akin, or some other minority hating 80 year old baptist fuck from Alabama, but it won't win the election.  At least Obama has a record to run on. Romney/Ryan has been the least inspired, most insipid campaign in living memory.  They make Mondale look like a policy genius.


I hope they lose spectacularly.  The Republican Party needs an ass kicking at the polls, so that it can purge the party of nimrods like these two, along with all the evangelicals, and get back to being the party of the Right.


A new Reagan sounds good.

Obama spent 2 years pushing thru Obamacare and has done nothing since.  Zero.  We don't even get budgets anymore, the spending just goes on autopilot while the President golfs and throws parties.  What's his economic plan?  Why hasn't he begun to implement it?  Is it just more of ... whatever 'this' is?  He can write all the position papers he wants, fact is he's a person with no life accomplishments doing nothing.  His world view is wrong.  He's not a leader.  That can't be fixed.  His record? - we've lost 4 years and have $6 Trillion in new debt.  We'd have even more debt except they've been printing new money to buy up other debt - that is going to be highly inflationary down he road.  I'm ready for anything else.
 
And Akin - you heard about his opponent McCaskill and her corrupt husband abusing power to rip off the taxpayers?  Filthy rich, what's he doing in the Senate lunchroon cutting deals and grabbing 'stimulous' funds for his companies?  He's not even Senator, his wife is.  Those two must be making Feinstein and her husband wonder why they stay in the shadows to do their backroom dealings.  If she was an R, the media would have picked her clean by now.  Another example of anybody but her.  Akin won't be setting policy, but his vote is needed to repeal Obamacare.
 
As far as the effect of taxes on the economy being too long ago to learn from - we can literally look back all the way to the Egyptians, Rome, other civilizations, and see cause and effect of good and bad tax policy.  Someone wrote a pretty interesting book on that a few years back.  Human nature doesn't change, how we react to good and bad tax policy doesn't change.
 
I have to say, if the choice is between  a 'minority hating 80 year old baptist fuck from Alabama' and an America hating Liberation Theology Marxist from Chicago... I wouldn't choose the guy from Chicago.  Fortunately, that's not the choice.
 
 
 

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #19 on: October 20, 2012, 12:41:40 PM »
Obama spent 2 years pushing thru Obamacare and has done nothing since.  Zero.  We don't even get budgets anymore

Cantor, Boehner, McConnell and the Tea Party get none of the blame, huh?

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #20 on: October 20, 2012, 03:30:46 PM »
Cantor, Boehner, McConnell and the Tea Party get none of the blame, huh?
How could they?  In PB's world, everything Dem must be demonized, and anything Rep must ipso facto be beyond reproach.  He is concerned about the hubby of some Dem peddling influence, but probably doesn't give a rat's ass that the Romney family own the voting machines that will be used in 5 states this election, including Ohio and Colorado.  But heck, those states couldn't possibly have an impact on the outcome of the election, could they?  Google "Tagg Romney voting machines" - scary stuff.

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #21 on: October 20, 2012, 04:34:44 PM »
It's interesting to me that the spending side of the equation is so often ignored.  Maybe Romney will spend less.  Fat chance, I know, but maybe.

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #22 on: October 20, 2012, 06:17:15 PM »
How could they?  In PB's world, everything Dem must be demonized, and anything Rep must ipso facto be beyond reproach.  He is concerned about the hubby of some Dem peddling influence, but probably doesn't give a rat's ass that the Romney family own the voting machines that will be used in 5 states this election, including Ohio and Colorado.  But heck, those states couldn't possibly have an impact on the outcome of the election, could they?  Google "Tagg Romney voting machines" - scary stuff.

We could talk all day about how the Republican Party and the Tea Party are usurping democracy in the US with voter suppression tactics without ever mentioning voter ID laws. You get crickets from the right about it, if they're even aware of what's going on.

And they've actually found someone worse than Bush. A sociopathic, economic hitman with made-up or secret policies we can't know about until after he's in the White House, and a secret sci-fi religion we're not supposed to talk about, who's sabre rattling with China and Russia like a complete imbecile, or worse, a psychopath who wants to bring back to glory days of a cold war.

But it's okay, because Obama is a secret muslim.

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #23 on: October 20, 2012, 07:19:57 PM »
We could talk all day about how the Republican Party and the Tea Party are usurping democracy in the US with voter suppression tactics without ever mentioning voter ID laws. You get crickets from the right about it, if they're even aware of what's going on.

And they've actually found someone worse than Bush. A sociopathic, economic hitman with made-up or secret policies we can't know about until after he's in the White House, and a secret sci-fi religion we're not supposed to talk about, who's sabre rattling with China and Russia like a complete imbecile, or worse, a psychopath who wants to bring back to glory days of a cold war.

But it's okay, because Obama is a secret muslim.

After I got used to the Bush Derangement Syndrome which affected so many on the distaff side 2000-2008 up until today, I would actually enjoy the diatribes which burst forth from so many sufferers. It was entertaining to see how far people would let themselves be driven, and it was also a pretty fair indicator of the degree of panic being felt on that side.

And now history seems to repeat itself, but with Romney as the target of the raving. Ah, I love the smell of panic in the morningevening all the time - it smells like....a landslide.

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #24 on: October 20, 2012, 07:44:58 PM »

And now history seems to repeat itself, but with Romney as the target of the raving. Ah, I love the smell of panic in the morningevening all the time - it smells like....a landslide.

         As someone who forecast a Obama 347 Romney 191 result a month ago....I must say that it seems like the lead is shortening quite a bit. I'm not going to go as far as saying that it's October, 1948 or October, 1968 or October, 1980...but what Iran was for Carter, Libya may be for Obama.

        "Voter suppression" of the past 100 years...occurred in 1920, 1924, 1928, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004. And only then!

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #25 on: October 20, 2012, 07:48:47 PM »
Rumors are that Gloria Allred has an October Surprise for Romney.  Time will tell.

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #26 on: October 20, 2012, 07:51:01 PM »
Rumors are that Gloria Allred has an October Surprise for Romney.  Time will tell.

         Would have happened already. That mannish attention hua couldn't possibly sit on something as far as October 21. I've seen prettier heads on a pimple.

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #27 on: October 20, 2012, 07:53:17 PM »
Maybe Gloria's "client" didn't come forward until the last couple of days.

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #28 on: October 20, 2012, 07:57:21 PM »
Maybe Gloria's "client" didn't come forward until the last couple of days.
      There would have been a camera crew instantly. That's why I don't buy it, because the Allred clan are such publicity whores that I can't imagine them keeping anything to themselves for a nanosecond.

Re: What To Look For If Romney Were To Win
« Reply #29 on: October 20, 2012, 08:43:02 PM »
Rumors are that Gloria Allred has an October Surprise for Romney.  Time will tell.

They could come up with some lie a day or two before the election, something that wouldn't be able to be refuted until a day or so after -- See Weinberger, Cap, Iran-Contra indictment, 4 days before the Nov '92 vote.  It was complete bullshit, maybe just enough to turn that election for Clinton.  There is nothing these people wouldn't lie about.